PARIS, Sept 4 – Western leaders gathered in Paris this week to discuss Ukraine’s long-term security in the event of a peace deal with Russia, but doubts continue to linger over whether the United States will commit to supporting such guarantees. With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy present, nearly 30 leaders from Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia took part in the summit, aiming to consolidate a framework of military and political support that could reassure Kyiv. Despite months of preparatory talks, clarity on concrete measures remains elusive, leaving both Ukrainian officials and their allies questioning the strength of future commitments.
Coalition Seeks Clarity
The Paris summit brought together what many have called a “coalition of the willing,” a group of nations determined to define long-term defense assurances for Ukraine should active fighting eventually give way to a negotiated settlement. The idea is to deter Moscow from reigniting conflict and to reassure Kyiv that it would not be left vulnerable in the event of a fragile truce.
While the coalition has engaged in discussions for months, momentum has slowed largely due to hesitation over the U.S. role. Several European governments have made it clear that their commitments to provide troops or other long-term support hinge on American backing. Without Washington’s involvement as a safety net, the guarantees risk appearing symbolic rather than enforceable.
U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration is central to current deliberations, has so far avoided making firm commitments. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with senior European officials in Paris ahead of the summit to gauge their positions. European leaders hoped these discussions would help highlight the gaps and push Washington toward taking a stronger stance.
French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking alongside Zelenskiy a day before the summit, confirmed that technical security plans had been finalized by military leaders, including the chiefs of staff from France and the United Kingdom. These plans, however, have not been publicly detailed, leaving many observers to speculate about their feasibility. According to Macron, Europe is prepared to guarantee Ukraine’s security when the moment for peace arrives, but questions remain about how those commitments would work in practice.
For some diplomats, the timing of the summit was strategic. With Trump recently meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and later accusing Moscow of coordinating with Beijing and Pyongyang, European officials view this as an opportunity to remind Washington of its pivotal role in the broader security picture. The intent is to signal to Trump that without U.S. leadership, progress toward peace and stability in Ukraine is unlikely to hold.
NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte underscored that a clearer roadmap from coalition partners would be essential before more serious discussions with Washington could proceed. Until then, the alliance remains in a holding pattern, balancing optimism with frustration.
Elusive Peace and Persistent Divisions
Despite the flurry of diplomatic engagement, the possibility of a genuine peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine still feels remote. Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated a willingness to consider negotiations “if common sense prevails,” but has simultaneously emphasized that he is prepared to continue military operations should diplomacy fail. This dual approach has left Kyiv and its allies wary of Moscow’s true intentions.
For Ukraine, the assurances under discussion go beyond symbolic political statements. Leaders in Kyiv are pressing for guarantees that would ensure their armed forces remain strong and supported over the long term. Among the ideas floated are the creation of an international support force, positioned both inside Ukraine and in neighboring countries, to provide deterrence and reassurance. However, Russia has consistently rejected any possibility of foreign deployments within Ukraine’s borders, making this a deeply contentious issue.
Within the coalition itself, significant divisions persist. While European leaders generally agree on the need to bolster Ukraine, they differ on the scale and scope of such guarantees. Some nations are more cautious, worried about the risks of open-ended commitments, while others argue that only robust and lasting support can prevent future aggression from Moscow.
The sticking point remains the role of the United States. European leaders have emphasized repeatedly that any multinational force or security umbrella would only be viable with Washington’s explicit backing. Trump had indicated last month, in general terms, that he would be willing to support Ukraine’s defense, but specifics have yet to materialize. French officials have said that some European leaders plan to call Trump directly after the summit, hoping to secure more concrete assurances.
Military experts caution that Zelenskiy needs to carefully weigh what is realistically on the table. John Foreman, a former British defense official with experience in both Kyiv and Moscow, stressed that Ukraine should fully understand what allies are offering before committing to any path forward. According to him, there is an increasing recognition among European states that sustaining Ukraine’s military strength is the most practical way to secure peace. However, he also noted that Ukraine cannot count on allies to intervene militarily if Russia were to launch a renewed offensive, underscoring the fragile nature of these discussions.
For now, the summit in Paris serves more as groundwork than a breakthrough. Leaders are preparing the political and technical framework for peace, but the reality remains that a genuine settlement is distant. The absence of clear U.S. commitments, combined with Trump’s shifting diplomatic approach, has left many uncertain about the durability of any future guarantees. Until Washington provides clarity, the coalition’s plans risk remaining aspirations rather than actionable policies.